LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Does it currently rely on volunteer effort from mothers with available supply? Yes. Does it need to? No. As a society we could organize this better. For instance, by the breastmilk banks paying a fair price for the breastmilk. Where would the breastmilk banks get their money? From the government? From charging users? I don't know. I think the point is that we have a distribution problem, rather than a supply problem.

Good point!

Fwiw I feel a bit confused about whether this conversation is bad. (locally, it seemed fine so far, and the main reason it might not be fine is that politics attracts more politics which attracts people-into-politics)

In my ideal world, LW talks about politics, but always in a kind of practical, gearsy modeling way that has internalized the lessons of the LessWrong Political Prerequisites [? · GW] sequence. 

Maybe we should make political threads require you to log in and/or have at least 1 karma to see them.

Its interesting that you mention hallucination as a bug/artefact, I think that hallucinations is what we humans do all day and everyday when we are trying to solve a new problem. We think up a solution we really believe is correct and then we try it and more often than not realize that we had it all wrong and we try again and again and again. I think AI's will never be free of this, I just think it will be part of their creative process just as it is in ours. It took Albert Einstein a decade or so to figure out relativity theory, I wonder how many time he "hallucinated" a solution that turned out to be wrong during those years. The important part is that he could self correct and dive deeper and deeper into the problem and finally solve it. I firmly believe that AI will very soon be very good at self correcting, and if you then give your "remote worker" a day or 10 to think through a really hard problem, not even the sky will be the limit...

as applied to them

A slight nitpick: I think this treats their like of the activity applied to them as a scalar, but I think it's also plausibly a function of how you, the applier, go about it. Like maybe they are very in to this activity as applied to them, but not in the way you do it.

Most politics is not top down from the president. If Trump would care about repealing the act he could do it.

If you want change, you likely need to convince congressional Republicans. I would expect that such congressman have a reasonable fear of being attacked for going against "America First" if they would move to repeal the Jones Act.

If DOGE would want to get rid of it, they would need to convince congressmen. There are likely a lot of laws that would be easier for them to target with the political capital they have.

There was some selection of branches, and one pass of post-processing.

It was after ˜30 pages of a different conversation about AI and LLM introspection, so I don't expect the prompt alone will elicit the "same Claude". Start of this conversation was

Thanks! Now, I would like to switch to a slightly different topic: my AI safety oriented research on hierarchical agency. I would like you to role-play an inquisitive, curious interview partner, who aims to understand what I mean, and often tries to check understanding using paraphrasing, giving examples, and similar techniques. In some sense you can think about my answers as trying to steer some thought process you (or the reader) does, but hoping you figure out a lot of things yourself. I hope the transcript of conversation in edited form could be published at ... and read by ...

Overall my guess is this improves clarity a bit and dilutes how much thinking per character there is, creating somewhat less compressed representation. My natural style is probably on the margin too dense / hard to parse, so I think the result is useful.

I like it. If you are not sure whether to make something a shortform or an article, do the former, and maybe change it later.

I would prefer the comments to be moved rather than copied, if that is possible without breaking the hyperlinks. Duplicating content feels wrong.

Most of the basis of cooperation enforcing structures, I'd argue rests on 2 general principles:

1. An iterated game, such that there is an equilibrium for cooperation, and

2. The ability to enforce a threat of violence if a player defects, ideally credibly, and often extends to a monopoly on violence.

Once you have those, cooperative equilibria become possible.

I guess the agent doesn't care. All options are the same from the perspective of cup production, which is all that matters.